Physical and stun damage, Somtimes stun seems to be worse... Options

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Still makes no sense (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

Heh... WHAT makes no sense? Rather than saying I am full of it (I know, you're not), can you explain to me what you think is nonsensical about my position.

Armor Impacts (= to Armor or less) cause Stun.
Armore Penetrations (> Armor) cause Phsyical.

Sometimes you will get some hits that penetrate and sometimes you will not. This has the potential to still leave someone standing that would otherwise have fallen due to accumulated Stun or Physical, had it remained on a single track, because it is now split between 2 tracks.

I see this as okay. And Intended, due to how the system actually works in play.
Others disagree.

Does this help? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Irion]

@Tymeaus Jalynsfein
Are you making some sort of fairness argument?
You have only stun, so you can be passed out. You have only physical and nearly dead, because you had no armor.
You had an armor so you have stun and some physical, and to make up for your physical damage you may stay active?

Others disagree.

I for my part, do actually not understand.

I understand what you say, I understand the words and sentances but I can't get the reasoning behind it. (And I guess it is the same with Mäx and Yerameyahu)

For my part I normally grasp quite fast, why somebody argues for or against a certain point. Be it to safe his character, or be it because he has in his real life a lot to do with stuff like that and does not like it, if it breaks his "suspension of disbelief", or he is just a "noble" Powergaming, locking to make his "job" harder.

For example: I dislike the ruling (and I guess it is for most this way) because it sometimes breaks the suspension of disbelief, when physical damage is just equally to stun damage.

[Draco18s]

Heh... WHAT makes no sense? Rather than saying I am full of it (I know, you're not), can you explain to me what you think is nonsensical about my position.

Alright then:

It's the same bullet from the same gun, but you're more likely to stay on your feet if the attacker rolls more successes and the bullet actually penetrates into your body, than you are if the armor stops the bullet.

Problem: doing better (more net hits) is actually a negative result (opponent stays on his feet).
Converse: opponent does worse (fewer net hits) is actually a negative result (you fall unconscious).

I think that's a false concern; this isn't about not-dying. Dying is always 100% the purview of the GM, regardless. This is about *winning* that specific combat. There are (rare) cases when you can take P, get off another shot, and hobble away the victor. That's a glitch, an artifact of the game mechanic, and it's at odds with the realism; it shouldn't be the case. That's all.

Less armor -> stay up longer

AS or the current Armor Question. There is an In-Game reasoning for that, and it is NOT a break in realism. It is SPECIFICALLY a metagaming issue. Armor is worn so that you do not otherwise die from Physical Damage. THAT is why it was invented in the first place. The disconnect is specifically a PC noticing that it would be more effecient to take stun to a certain point, and then to ditch the armor so that he can take the empty physical boxes, so that he can stay up longer. WHY does he want to stay up longer, though? There is absolutely no answer that can be provided that does not break that metagaming issue. NO ONE in their right mind would ditch armor in a firefight so they could get one more shot in. The more likely scenario is that they will run, or give up, the moment that they see they are in a losing fight. Arguing that you would ditch the armor to stay in the fight is entirely disengenous.

More armor -> stay up longer (except the rules don't reflect that, except no one would actually DO it, so it's irrelevant)

Armor Impacts (= to Armor or less) cause Stun.
Armore Penetrations (> Armor) cause Phsyical.

Sometimes you will get some hits that penetrate and sometimes you will not. This has the potential to still leave someone standing that would otherwise have fallen due to accumulated Stun or Physical, had it remained on a single track, because it is now split between 2 tracks.

Less armor -> stay up longer (this is OK because that's the rules and the rules are OK)

[snowRaven]

And yet that happens, even in real life, dependant upon circumstance.

Sounds like you are arguing for using strictly non-lethal (Less Lethal) means of attack and then making a choice to either kill or not after the fact. Again, metagaming BS. In real life, a Bullet proof vest will allow someone to stay up and continue fighting when he would otherwise have fallen. I don't see organizations having this discussion. They use the most lethal option they can if they are trying to permanently take someone down, and the less lethal option if they want to interrogate them.

My point is that you have made the choice going into the situation. You are either going for non-lethal or lethal takedowns, Not the "Most Efficient". The reasson is becasue you cannot know ahead of time what will work out the best. Sometimes you choose poorly. Sucks to be you. You are trying to argue that the world should work in the character's favor all the time, and that is just not the way it works. Regardless of how you try to spin it, Physical Damage is always better than Stun Damage, if your intent is to actually Hurt someone. And if you are attacking them with a lethal (less than lethal) weapon, your intent is to damage them.

Often in real-life combat, the goal - even when using lethal ammo - isn't to kill, but to incapacitate. If you kill or not is usually irrelevant, as long as your opponent can't keep attacking you. It doesn't matter if he gave up, ran out of bullets, got knocked unconscious, or died. You 'won' if you are left standing and can chose what to do next.

All things being equal, the man with no armor will fall to the gunfire just as fast as the armored up tank will fall to stun damage because the bullet never penetrates. Unfortunately, all things are not equal, and sometimes the armor just doesn't do its job correctly, and stop every bullet. That is reality, and the game world mimics that adequately.

Yet by using basic logic, the armored guy should - all things being equal - be able to withstand MORE punishment.

Are claiming that the discrepancy between damage types in very specific situations is intentional to introduce a 'chaos factor'? If so, why? The roll of the dice is the chaos factor that mimics the fact that things don't always work out as expected.

And yet, you are arguing that the result opf the combat becomes "Worse" for it doing so. See the disconnect?

No I am not - I'm arguing that the discrepancy and disconnect between the two types of damage can create the 'worse' result. The armor does what it's supposed to do. It's the body of the target that fails to do what it's supposed to under certain rare circumstances.

The issues is that the Shooter shouold never know the wound levels of the Target. You are arguing from a Metagame standpoint. The Character (and Ideally the Player) should never know the wound levels of the target they are fighting. They should make their roll, tally the net hits and give a damage number to the GM. The GM should apply damage reduction, and tally damage. Never should the Player/Character know how much of a mechanical effect that resolution produced, other than the narrative description given by the GM. I know that the argument here is that it is a Theroy situation, and that it is an issue because of that, but I say that is BS. This stuff happens in real life. Why should it not work that way in the Game World.

Like I said, the issue exists independent of the shooter knowing what damage the target has. However, the scienctists of the SR world will during countless ballistic tests and armor tests etc etc have found out that the best way to keep soldiers on their feet is to have every third bullet or so penetrate armor, and that there will be a point in a shooters training where he suddenly becomes statistically worse at taking down opponents. It's an undisputable fact of the way the mechanics of the world work - observable in-game by people having no clue that there actions are determined by the roll of a dice.

And I say SO WHAT to that... That is how it should be. Because in the real world, people do not just take a single type of "wound" when push comes to shove. Sometimes the bullets hit the vest, sometimes they go through. Look, 2 types of damage. Wow, the encounter is now likely to take longer.

Yet in the real world, people will go down faster the more shots penetrate armor, because all damage affects the body against the same limit. In Shadowrun, it doesn't. Within the game world, it is completely irrelevant what happens somewhere else.

But, did you notice what you did here? You just proved my point. Look at what you just said... Here, I have highlighted it above. You have now said that it is more desireable to split your damage. That is DEFINITELY true for the defender. And it always will be; The attacker's wishes be damned. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot declare that the Shooter gets a single track, and the defender gets to have 2 tracks. In the end, the dice decide just how that plays out. It may go either way. The Desireable effect differs dependant upon who you are. Thanks for proving my point, SnowRaven. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

You just admitted that it is inherently BETTER for the defender to split the damage. If it's better for the defender, how can it also be BETTER for the attacker? Since both aim to win, what is good for one side is necessarily bad for the other side. Hence, splitting the damage is WORSE for the attacker if it's BETTER for the defender.

In an ideal world, it isn't, unfortunately, the world is not ideal. You keep arguing that hte attacker should get all his cake and eat it to. The fact is, objectively, physical damage is better. it takes longer for it to heal, so therefore, i would rather inflict Physical damage than Stun. If that is my goal. If my goal is just to incapacitate as fast as I can do soi, tehn maybe I should go for another option. Shadowrun has myriad ways to accomplish this. BUT, if you are using firearms, and you load with lethal capacity, well, your goal has already been decided to not incapacitate. You have chosen a lethal option, and because so, physical is better than stun. That is your choice. It may not work out for you in the end, because of the capriciousness of the dice and the armor of the target (Remember, the target WANTS split tracks.)

Incapacitate does not equal 'make unconscious' - incapacitate simply mean 'make uncapable', HOW that happenas is irrelevent. See above.

Again, it is dependant upon situation. If yuo only care about incapacitation, you should probably go for a non-lethal method. Why? because it likely has the quickest route to your goal. If you did not choose such, your goal is not to incapacitate as quickly as possible. Unless you are competant enough to use a lethal method that will work all the time. I have absolutely no trouble, with an y of my characters, in eliminating a target with minimal exposure. Might be because I tailor my equipment to my purpose. If the players/characters are bitching about NOT being able to do so, maybe they should look htere, rather than blaming a perfectly functional mechanic.

But if the mechanic fails in certain circumstances, it isn't 'perfectly functional'.

Of course not. But, and here is the kicker, I would rasther die to the ghouls than be infected. Just my choice. But, my characters carry adequate armaments to cover that situation, and then they take great pains to not have to use that firepower. That being said, I have lost several characters to Ghouls in the past. Probably will do so again in the future. So what. It is a part of the game.

Yes, the infectous part adds a complication.

It sounds like you (generic, not aimed directly at you SnowRaven) have situations that the players take issue with because they can't just push an "I Win" button. Stuff happens in a game that is outside of the control of the players and their characters. They really sound like they need to just suck it up and deal with it. I do not see this issue as an actual issue. And honestly, I think that many here are making it out to be more than it is. Especially since the mecahnic does EXACTLY what it is supposed to do.

I don't take it as aimed at me personally, and my players don't bitch about it. We've accepted that the game mechanics fail in certain circumstances and don't dwell on it - this thread being the exception (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Alright then:

Problem: doing better (more net hits) is actually a negative result (opponent stays on his feet).
Converse: opponent does worse (fewer net hits) is actually a negative result (you fall unconscious).

The PROBLEM: is not a NEGATIVE result. It is a result that did not lead top YOUR expectations as a Shooter. Not the same thing. It is EXACTLY the result I expect to see if you continue to hit stun, and then, in one instance get Lucky and penetrate. However, THE TARGET STILL TOOK MORE SERIOUS DAMAGE than he would otherwise have taken.

The CONVERSE: is not a NEGATIVE result, but a logical conlcusion to taking more stun. It is the EXPECTED RESULT for taking more Stun.

See, I think that the issued is still one of perspective. For the shooter, it sucks that his opposition may not go down based upon how the target takes damage. FOr the defender, he is, hopefully, relying upon his armor tot ake the brunt of the abuse, but knows that occasionally, it will be penetrated. for the Defender, it does not get any better than that. He is accepting that, on occasion, he will possibly take REAL damage from someone who can actually shoot, but that against most opposition his armor will take the hits. (Guy B in examples Above)

Less armor -> stay up longer

Actually, No. Less armor does not equate to staying up longer, as most shots will likely do actual physical damage, and then he is Dead (Guy C in the Examples above). Not sure how you get thast interpretation. Look at it this way. Shooter gets some good shots in, and some bad shots in. The good ones will penetrate the armor, the bad ones will not.

More armor -> stay up longer (except the rules don't reflect that, except no one would actually DO it, so it's irrelevant)

Actually they do. The more armor you have, the less likely you are to take Physical Damage, aAND the less likely you are to take Stun Damage becuase you soaked ALL the damage, thus there is no stun to take. Optimal, but hard to do and remain plausible in the game world. Most characters I see in play run with about 8-10 Ballistic. This is pretty good. Any Troll I have seen in play rarely takes any damage at all, due to high Armor and Soak pools.

Less armor -> stay up longer (this is OK because that's the rules and the rules are OK).

Again, I am not sure where you get that, as I never said that. Good armor will tend to soak most hits, though Some will likely get through. I have never said that LESS armor is better for you. The sweet spot is to have armor good enough to take most hits, and yet not be an issue for mobility or other concerns, and acceptance of the fact that some hits will penetrate. If you are running with less, it is likely for a reason, but you run the risk of Penetration from weapons. If you are running with MORE, then good for you. Most of my characters are comfortable with the Ballistic 8-10 Range. It is the sweet spot for my characters. Tough enough for most hits, and yet wearable enough that I do not get encumbered. Because it is not high-end, I expect some of those hits to actuallyu penetrate the armor and cause physical damage. I am not surprised when they do.

Again... this continues to look like a perspective problem, rather than a ruiles issue. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Sponge]

Another suggestion for a rules tweak, totally untested:

1. Attacks with a Physical DV that penetrate armor also do half DV in "secondary" Stun (rounded up)
2. Attacks with a Physical DV that do not penetrate armor do ONLY half DV in Stun (rounded up)
3. If an attack with a Physical DV penetrates armor, any secondary Stun does NOT overflow to Physical.

[Draco18s]

The PROBLEM: is not a NEGATIVE result. It is a result that did not lead top YOUR expectations as a Shooter. Not the same thing. It is EXACTLY the result I expect to see if you continue to hit stun, and then, in one instance get Lucky and penetrate. However, THE TARGET STILL TOOK MORE SERIOUS DAMAGE than he would otherwise have taken.

The CONVERSE: is not a NEGATIVE result, but a logical conlcusion to taking more stun. It is the EXPECTED RESULT for taking more Stun.

If the expected result is not the mechanical result, there is a disconnect, thus problem with the rules.

Actually they do. The more armor you have, the less likely you are to take Physical Damage, AND the less likely you are to take Stun Damage becuase you soaked ALL the damage, thus there is no stun to take. Optimal, but hard to do and remain plausible in the game world. Most characters I see in play run with about 8-10 Ballistic. This is pretty good. Any Troll I have seen in play rarely takes any damage at all, due to high Armor and Soak pools.

I'm talking about the difference of 1 armor or 1 net hit. Or in extreme cases where 1 more stun means unconsciousness, but that the physical track is empty (i.e. 10 whole boxes) and that the loss of a lot of armor does make a difference.

In any case, the odds of soaking ALL damage are extremely tiny, even at 18 (!!!) armor. A holdout piston does a minimum of 5, and it just goes up from there.

Again, I am not sure where you get that, as I never said that. Good armor will tend to soak most hits, though Some will likely get through. I have never said that LESS armor is better for you.

You've stated that less armor means sometimes you take physical damage.
You've stated that sometimes taking physical damage means that you stay "up/conscious/active" longer.
Staying up longer is "better" as it (more easily) results in a "win."
Less armor -> Better.
Q.E.F.D.
(Quod Erat Fucking Demonstrandum)

The sweet spot is to have armor good enough to take most hits, and yet not be an issue for mobility or other concerns, and acceptance of the fact that some hits will penetrate. If you are running with less, it is likely for a reason, but you run the risk of Penetration from weapons. If you are running with MORE, then good for you.

Except that that isn't true. It's very easy to end up with High Body for High Armor and HUGE Physical track, and constantly, constantly get knocked out from stun overflow. This is losing. 3 points less armor might in fact be the difference between falling unconscious every fight and "taking a bleeding wound" to stay up, stay fighting, and win the fight.

Most of my characters are comfortable with the Ballistic 8-10 Range. It is the sweet spot for my characters. Tough enough for most hits, and yet wearable enough that I do not get encumbered. Because it is not high-end, I expect some of those hits to actuallyu penetrate the armor and cause physical damage. I am not surprised when they do.

Again you admit that this is the "winning" number because some hits penetrate.

Again... this continues to look like a perspective problem, rather than a ruiles issue. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

No, it isn't.

1) Rules: having your armor penetrated (sometimes) is good.
2) Perspective: having your armor penetrated (EVER) is BAD.

1 && 2 is never True,* thus there is an issue: there is a disconnect between the rules and the perception.

*That is, the boolean logic of statement1 AND statement2 is false: they are not both true. You cannot reach a state where the rules agree with the perception without changing the rules. The two statements are self-contradictory at current, thus the entire issue of this thread.

No, this is the opposite of SR4. 4 bullets: Mr-A takes takes 4 physical hits, Mr-B takes 2-2, Mr-C takes 4 stun hits.
In SR4, Mr-C is dropped, but Mr-B is *not*.
In RL, Mr-C should be the 'least dropped', not Mr-B (who took two wounds and two vest hits). I've explained this three times. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Often in real-life combat, the goal - even when using lethal ammo - isn't to kill, but to incapacitate. If you kill or not is usually irrelevant, as long as your opponent can't keep attacking you. It doesn't matter if he gave up, ran out of bullets, got knocked unconscious, or died. You 'won' if you are left standing and can chose what to do next.

I don't know about your training in the Military, SnowRaven, but I was not taught to maim or incapacitate, I was taught to kill. In the most expedient fashion possible. Even had special classes for just that purpose. So no, when I am in a lethal encounter, I am not trying to incapacitate, I am trying to kill (This generallycarriesd over into myPOV for characters, too). Fortunately for me, I do not see those situations all that much. And I am grateful for that. Does not change the training, though.

Yet by using basic logic, the armored guy should - all things being equal - be able to withstand MORE punishment.

The Armored Guy CAN take more damage, and often does, because he often splits that damage between the two tracks dependant upon how successful his opponent is in harming him, anbbd how successful he is in soaking. Why? Because he is more armored. The less armored guy loses outright, by comparison.

Are claiming that the discrepancy between damage types in very specific situations is intentional to introduce a 'chaos factor'? If so, why? The roll of the dice is the chaos factor that mimics the fact that things don't always work out as expected.

Absolutely not. The dice are capricious enough. I am saying the mechanic was crafted to perform just as it does, with some hits penetrating and some not, DEPENDANT UPON THE SUCCESS OF THE SHOOTER. Complaining about the defenders damage track because the shooter cannot be consistent is not the defender's issue, it is the shooter's (and it is not even a game world concern, hence the Metagaming I keep complaining about). Ironically, the defender will throw a roll or two as well, so it does all work out in the end.

No I am not - I'm arguing that the discrepancy and disconnect between the two types of damage can create the 'worse' result. The armor does what it's supposed to do. It's the body of the target that fails to do what it's supposed to under certain rare circumstances.

Except I see the body doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing when it receives damage. I see no Discrepency. It only exzists if you equate the damage as equal, which I do not do. Yes, teh Modifiers are the same, but the damage is entirely different in nature.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Continued...

Like I said, the issue exists independent of the shooter knowing what damage the target has. However, the scienctists of the SR world will during countless ballistic tests and armor tests etc etc have found out that the best way to keep soldiers on their feet is to have every third bullet or so penetrate armor, and that there will be a point in a shooters training where he suddenly becomes statistically worse at taking down opponents. It's an undisputable fact of the way the mechanics of the world work - observable in-game by people having no clue that there actions are determined by the roll of a dice.

Again, in experimentation, it has absolutely nothing to do with "every third round should penetrate." The best way to keep soldiers on the ir feet is to have teh round impact the armor, and have all the energy stay in the armor and none of it transferred to the body (A complete soak roll). You are comparing apples to oranges, I think. Instead, what happens, in fact, after those experiments is that the researchers come to the determination that the vest will stop "MOST" rounds, and some will get through, and that is deemed the acceptable limit for surviveability. In the end, teh search for more viable armor continues as ammunition cpabilities are increased. In some instances, ther armor stops all teh energy, and the wearer ius unhurt; but eventually, ammunition catches up and that is no longer the case, and the cycle continues.

Yet in the real world, people will go down faster the more shots penetrate armor, because all damage affects the body against the same limit. In Shadowrun, it doesn't. Within the game world, it is completely irrelevant what happens somewhere else.

YES, of course, because they have penetrated, and are inflicting Physical Damage. However, put random exhaustion into the mix (or bruising, or whatever you want to mimic Stun), and the results do not always, or even generally, stack to the same outcome. In the end, the target will have both tracks with damage in them, he likely went down at the same speed (All rounds penetrated, so that does not change the speed dynamic), and he is MORE hurt thatn the first guy was. Gee Imagine that, just like in Shadowrun when that happens. Hmmmmmmm. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

You just admitted that it is inherently BETTER for the defender to split the damage. If it's better for the defender, how can it also be BETTER for the attacker? Since both aim to win, what is good for one side is necessarily bad for the other side. Hence, splitting the damage is WORSE for the attacker if it's BETTER for the defender.

No, I parroted what you said. The fact that I happen to agree with it is notwithstanding. YOU Said that, not me. Go back and look, I highlighted it (I think). But you are right. I do not care whether the shooter's feeling are hurt because the target manages to survive longer, because his armor is mostly effective. That is my expectation from the start. No Armor is perfect, and no armor can stop everything. SInce I go into it with that expectation, I am not surprised when my opposition survives a bit longer due to the capriciousness of the dice when taking damage.

Incapacitate does not equal 'make unconscious' - incapacitate simply mean 'make uncapable', HOW that happenas is irrelevent. See above.

You are absolutely right. ANd you are right that it does not matter how it happens. WHat I take umbrage at is the complaining that it does not work out in the shooter's favor. Too Bad. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

But if the mechanic fails in certain circumstances, it isn't 'perfectly functional'.

I do not see it failing, like some others do. I see it working EXACTLY as I expect it to work. Therefore, it works perfectly, as far as I am concerned. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Yes, the infectous part adds a complication.

Indeed it does. That aside, thoguh, I am always ready for a character to die. If it happens, I rarely even spend Edge to HOG it. WHy should I.

I don't take it as aimed at me personally, and my players don't bitch about it. We've accepted that the game mechanics fail in certain circumstances and don't dwell on it - this thread being the exception (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Awesome... I am not aiming anything at anyone in particular.
I am thoroughly enjoying the debate. Thanks (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Draco18s]

Again, in experimentation, it has absolutely nothing to do with "every third round should penetrate." The best way to keep soldiers on the ir feet is to have teh round impact the armor, and have all the energy stay in the armor and none of it transferred to the body (A complete soak roll).

This never happens in the game world, short of a cybertank. 10 or 12 armor is the most any PC can have without being a complete armor whore and cheese the rules (as you, yourself have indicated).

12 armor stops (about) 4 damage.

A holdout pistol does 4 DV plus net hits (thus, minimum 5).

And I don't know about you, but my runners aren't ever shot with holdout pistols.

[Irion]

@Draco18s
You have still your body dice (In reality the whole kinetic energy is also not absorbed)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

If the expected result is not the mechanical result, there is a disconnect, thus problem with the rules.

My expected result IS THE MECHANICAL RESULT... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I'm talking about the difference of 1 armor or 1 net hit. Or in extreme cases where 1 more stun means unconsciousness, but that the physical track is empty (i.e. 10 whole boxes) and that the loss of a lot of armor does make a difference.

And so am I , and it makes no difference to MY argument. Taht it does to yours implies, to me at least, that you are looking at it wrong. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

In any case, the odds of soaking ALL damage are extremely tiny, even at 18 (!!!) armor. A holdout piston does a minimum of 5, and it just goes up from there.

Indeed, and yet I see it often in play. Especially for the trolls. Of course, I have also seen those same trolls fub a roll so bad that they soak nothing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

You've stated that less armor means sometimes you take physical damage.
You've stated that sometimes taking physical damage means that you stay "up/conscious/active" longer.
Staying up longer is "better" as it (more easily) results in a "win."
Less armor -> Better.
Q.E.F.D.
(Quod Erat Fucking Demonstrandum)

Less armor means you OFTEN take more physical damage.
Sometimes taking physical damage means you stay up longer, yes, regardless of the "Level" of armor, as long as sometimes it stops the round, and sometimes it does not.
Staying up longer does not more easily equate to a win, it just means that you stay up longer. Situations vary, and I am not going to make such a sweeping statement.

Again. I have never said that. Good armor (without going overboard) is generally better for you than either Less or More armor. THAT is what I said, Not that Less is better. Since it all hinges upon how proficient the shootgr is, that optimal level of armor is a bit fluid. For some shooters, you will never have enough, and for some, even a little is more than adeqate. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Except that that isn't true. It's very easy to end up with High Body for High Armor and HUGE Physical track, and constantly, constantly get knocked out from stun overflow. This is losing. 3 points less armor might in fact be the difference between falling unconscious every fight and "taking a bleeding wound" to stay up, stay fighting, and win the fight.

It is indeed easy to get to that point, which I have already addressed. I f you want to go for the gold, and try to soak it all down, and have a massive armor pool, you will generally ONLY fall to Stun. So What? It is a Choice that a character makes, knowing full well the ramifications of such choice. It is NOT losing, as you are STILL ALIVE, rather than the dead you would otherwise be if you went the other direction with your choice, and wore NO armor.

Yes, a measly point of two of armor can make or break you, dependant upon where you determine your sweet spot for armor to be. I do not care about that, as it floats, and is personal to each character. That is of absolutely no concern to me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Again you admit that this is the "winning" number because some hits penetrate.

Never said it was "Winning," I said the optimal number is dependant upon several floating factors.

No, it isn't.

1) Rules: having your armor penetrated (sometimes) is good.
2) Perspective: having your armor penetrated (EVER) is BAD.

1 && 2 is never True, thus there is an issue: there is a disconnect between the rules and the perception.

World states that having armor penetrated is Bad...
Rules state that having your armor penetrated is Bad...
Perspective: Having your armor penetrated is bad, but I do expect it to happen, becasue Armor is never perfect, and i am going to get hurt.

Notice How they all Match? There is no mismatch. Perception, Perspective and Rules all match.

The problem is in your perspecitve. You expect armor to be either 100% effective, or 100% non-effective. I do not have that issue. I expect that my armor will protect me to some degree, what that degree is, is totally dependant upon who is shooting at me at the time. It is a fluid thing. You cannot fix that.

[Yerameyahu]

There is no 'perspective' involved. There is only one point: the SR4 rules fail in this specific way to follow real life. While there are some cases where the rules aren't supposed to follow reality, in *this* case, that is bad; a failure. If you don't agree that the SR4 outcomes (mentioned earlier) clearly mismatch the typical real life outcomes, there's nothing that can be done. You're not entitled to your own facts. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

It doesn't matter if this ever comes up in play, whether it can be abused by players or GM, whether it can be avoided/ignored/disallowed. All that matters is the fact that the RL interaction of armor mismatches the SR4 interaction of armor on 'blocked' and 'pierced' shots (or strikes).

World states that having armor penetrated is Bad...
Rules state that having your armor penetrated is Bad...

This is a preposterous argument. Not only does it not actually rebut what came before, but it's uselessly vague; 'bad'?

You expect armor to be either 100% effective, or 100% non-effective.

I haven't seen anyone say anything like this. Why are you constantly introducing irrelevant and/or false side issues? And again, the randomness of armor is already fully modeled by Damage Resistance tests. The fact that half-and-half damage keeps you standing longer than pure P or pure S cannot be an intentional mechanic for the random function of armor.

[Falanin]

Hmm. While this is a common enough situation that my players have noticed it, I don't know that it's a big enough issue to require a houserule.

In my game, I'd just let them cry about it, then mention the trauma dampner/platelet factory they didn't take to reduce the stun damage... or maybe go straight to the "Don't you wish you had a pain editor?" crack. Since, y'know, a pain editor completely stops that whole unconscious from stun damage thing.

Now, if pressed for a houserule to help with the problem, I wouldn't be opposed to allowing the FIRST stimpatch applied actually heal (or at least roll dice to heal) any non drain-induced stun damage up to its rating. Subsequent stimpatches only providing non-stacking pain resist, as mentioned in the rules.

EDIT: Speaking of pain editors, I feel these things would be fairly common for heavy assault troops (the ones typically in the heavy milspec). They already have a biomonitor built into the suit to deal with the side effects, and they take mostly stun damage (again, from all the armor). Might make it hard to get permits to go off the reservation, but I can see some of the hardcore really not caring much about that if they can literally ignore the pain and get the job done. Or perhaps big brother just ships in the hookers and blow for these guys, I dunno.

[Yerameyahu]

Yeah, the Pain Editor has always been ridiculously good.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Yeah, the Pain Editor has always been ridiculously good.

Love the pain editor. Don't see it in play all that much, though.

[Yerameyahu]

At least they kinda fixed it in SR4 (IIRC). Now, you still take Stun and it rolls over to Phys, right? And in SR3 it was just straight immunity to all Stun? I vaguely recall lots of mage trickery.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

There is no 'perspective' involved. There is only one point: the SR4 rules fail in this specific way to follow real life. While there are some cases where the rules aren't supposed to follow reality, in *this* case, that is bad; a failure. If you don't agree that the SR4 outcomes (mentioned earlier) clearly mismatch the typical real life outcomes, there's nothing that can be done. You're not entitled to your own facts. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

There is perspective. The World Perspective, anmd teh Player (Metagame) perspective. I say that the rules you say are inadequate in their application are in fact adequate because they work just fine. You have yet to point out a placve in teh game where it is inadequate. It is all theory to you, as you have said so many times, and the theory falls short of application, by a lot. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) They are not my own facts, they are borne out by players all over the world. None have yet to claim any IN_GAME issues. Thay have all indicated that it is theory. Theory loses to actual application.

It doesn't matter if this ever comes up in play, whether it can be abused by players or GM, whether it can be avoided/ignored/disallowed. All that matters is the fact that the RL interaction of armor mismatches the SR4 interaction of armor on 'blocked' and 'pierced' shots (or strikes).

But it DOES matter... If it never actually comes up in play, then the theory you are so proud of is invalid. You have to actually PROVE your theory, and you have yet to do so.

This is a preposterous argument. Not only does it not actually rebut what came before, but it's uselessly vague; 'bad'?
I haven't seen anyone say anything like this. Why are you constantly introducing irrelevant and/or false side issues? And again, the randomness of armor is already fully modeled by Damage Resistance tests. The fact that half-and-half damage keeps you standing longer than pure P or pure S cannot be an intentional mechanic for the random function of armor.

I was only rebutting was was originally posited. If the Reply is preposterous, then so is the original premise. Can't have it both ways Yerameyahu. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

But, I will ask this? Are you saying that it is not BAD for your armor to be penetrated? IT IS BAD. Would a new term fit better for you? How about Possibly Fatal? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) The randomness of damage is EXACTLY what we are talking about. Sometiimes it is Stun, and other times it is Physical. It is random, based on several factors, one of which is the effectiveness of the shooter. And yes, Half and Half damage is Entirely Intentional, otherwise you would not have 2 damage tracks. It has always been that way in Shadowrun. it is not new to 4th Edition.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

At least they kinda fixed it in SR4 (IIRC). Now, you still take Stun and it rolls over to Phys, right? And in SR3 it was just straight immunity to all Stun? I vaguely recall lots of mage trickery.

You take the damage (Stun), but you ignore all stun wound penalties, and you do not go unconscious.

[thorya]

Insanity- Doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

Oh well, guess I'm insane. I'll keep feeding the troll.

The rules as applied also leads to the fun result where you are more likely to go unconscious from a single bullet that is stopped in your armor than three bullets, some of which get through your armor and some of which don't. Is there ever a situation where that makes sense? Are you seriously going to say that it is a consistent world for someone that has taken three gun shots to the trauma plate to drop from another gun shot wound to the trauma plate, but not to drop from a gun shot wound to the trauma plate if he happens to have two other bullets that penetrate his vest from the same shot? Or even to still be standing when two bullets strike the trauma plate and one gets through, when a single one on the trauma plate would have dropped him. Yes, I realize I'm making an assumption about how a short burst is distributed in terms of hit, since it's a level of abstraction. But that is one of the situations covered by a short burst's damage modifier.

I believe this was mention earlier where people were taking single shots rather than burst so they would be more likely to do stun damage. Even if your players are not doing so to get around this problem in the rules, surely it breaks the reality for a player when someone is more likely to be incapacitated by a single bullet than by several bullets. If it doesn't break reality for you, fine. It does for me. Which is why I use a single wound track for NPC's.

[Yerameyahu]

No, TJ, theory is the whole point. I'm not talking about application, because it's not a contest of theory vs. application. It's a discussion wholly about theory. If you're not personally interested in such a discussion, if you don't care about anything that doesn't centrally affect gameplay, that's fine, but you don't get to dismiss it as unworthy. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

You did not rebut the previous argument. You restated it in a wholly distorted and grossly oversimplified way, then smugly beat that straw man.

I didn't say anything about 'inadequate in application'. I said the mechanics don't follow reality. Why can't you ever respond to things I actually say? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) For another example, I didn't say two damage tracks wasn't intentional; I said *the fact that half-and-half damage keeps you standing longer than pure P or pure S* (in contrast to reality) can't be intentional… specifically that it can't be a method for modeling random armor performance.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Insanity- Doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

Oh well, guess I'm insane. I'll keep feeding the troll.

The rules as applied also leads to the fun result where you are more likely to go unconscious from a single bullet that is stopped in your armor than three bullets, some of which get through your armor and some of which don't. Is there ever a situation where that makes sense? Are you seriously going to say that it is a consistent world for someone that has taken three gun shots to the trauma plate to drop from another gun shot wound to the trauma plate, but not to drop from a gun shot wound to the trauma plate if he happens to have two other bullets that penetrate his vest from the same shot? Or even to still be standing when two bullets strike the trauma plate and one gets through, when a single one on the trauma plate would have dropped him. Yes, I realize I'm making an assumption about how a short burst is distributed in terms of hit, since it's a level of abstraction. But that is one of the situations covered by a short burst's damage modifier.

I believe this was mention earlier where people were taking single shots rather than burst so they would be more likely to do stun damage. Even if your players are not doing so to get around this problem in the rules, surely it breaks the reality for a player when someone is more likely to be incapacitated by a single bullet than by several bullets. If it doesn't break reality for you, fine. It does for me. Which is why I use a single wound track for NPC's.

Not trolling... Debate.

This is very true. If you take enough damage from a single bullet stopped in your trauma plates (ie. your armor is greater than 10, and you get minimal successes, such that your Damage is still 10+), then Yes, you will go unconscious. How do you explain someone who always stops all but 1 point of damage per shot, and some go to stun, and others go to Physical? Surely this is a problem for you.

See, in my world, it is not a problem to describe some people going down from single shots on a sinble track, while others are described as taking dozens of rounds before falling (multiple tracks). That is how the world works. That is how the mechanics work. Arguing otherwise is a bit disengenuous.

Now, you may not like it that way, And I get it, but that is how it is. Saying it is not fact is actually wrong.

I suggested a Single wound track for NPCs long ago (it is, after all, a suggestion in the book). However, Since you do not like that mechanic (Split Tracks) much, what do you do for Player Characters? Though I imagine they do not complain when it is in their favor, which it will always be if you use a single track for Mooks. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

No, TJ, theory is the whole point. I'm not talking about application, because it's not a contest of theory vs. application. It's a discussion wholly about theory. If you're not personally interested in such a discussion, if you don't care about anything that doesn't centrally affect gameplay, that's fine, but you don't get to dismiss it as unworthy. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Theory is irrelevant if it is not a problem in actual application. You are trying to fix a problem that does not exist in application, so the resultant theory is flawed.

You did not rebut the previous argument. You restated it in a wholly distorted and grossly oversimplified way, then smugly beat that straw man.

Actually, I just restated it, exactly like it was proposed, and added on more argument line, and removed a conclusion to support a different conclusion. So, Yes, it was simply a restatement.

I didn't say anything about 'inadequate in application'. I said the mechanics don't follow reality. Why can't you ever respond to things I actually say? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) For another example, I didn't say two damage tracks wasn't intentional; I said *the fact that half-and-half damage keeps you standing longer than pure P or pure S* (in contrast to reality) can't be intentional… specifically that it can't be a method for modeling random armor performance.

And I have repeatedly said the mechanics DO follow reality. Why do you keep dismissing that so that you can talk about Theory? The fact that it is exactly how the rule is written is ENTIRELY intentional. Otherwise there would not be two parallel damage tracks, and a dice roll to see how much damage you take. Like there have been for the last 20 years in Shadowrun (Though IIRC, Previous editions was just a straight reduction in Damage power... been a long time since I played previous editions). Why now, all of a sudden, is it a problem? Half and Half Damage has ALWAYS kept you standing longer than Pure Stun or Pure Physical. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

Theory is irrelevant if it is not a problem in actual application.

This is simply false. It is irrelevant to *you*.

And I have repeatedly said the mechanics DO follow reality. Why do you keep dismissing that so that you can talk about Theory?

I haven't dismissed it. I have *denied* it. It's not 'all of a sudden'. We just happen to be talking today. Again, I didn't say *having* two tracks was anything. I said the weird *consequence* of that setup creates a situation which does not follow reality. In reality, the man whose armor blocked all the shots does not go down *before* the man whose armor only blocked half of them. This *consequence* of the rules is not an intentional implementation of 'armor works randomly, deal with it', because the Damage Resistance test already does that.

[Sponge]

See, in my world, it is not a problem to describe some people going down from single shots on a sinble track, while others are described as taking dozens of rounds before falling (multiple tracks). That is how the world works. That is how the mechanics work.

Let me see if I'm understanding what you're saying... you don't have a problem with the existing mechanics because they generate statistically reasonable results over the span of multiple combats, regardless of whether any individual wound/effect is reasonable or not?